> Ancestor X born in 1773 is considered to be the son of Y & Z based > on published histories in the 1800's. He certainly lived and > married alongside this family (but there were others of his surname > in the area). > > According to the published sources, X was the 3rd of 4 sons born to > Y & Z, after a string of girls all living. All three sons other > than X die before the age of 5. When the last of these sons dies, X > was 2 years old. > > I have tombstone inscriptions of all three other sons. They agree > with the published birth/death dates. However, on the 4th son's > tombstone, he is identified as "the third son of Y&Z". (The first > two tombstones just say "son of ...") > > How much weight should I give this seeming descrepancy? Could the > tombstone possibly be interpreted as "the third son of Y&Z to die"? > What that sort of "ordering" ever a custom to anyone's knowledge? > > I am new at this, and I would greatly appreciate any help from more > experienced hands. > > Marti Ford mford@moscow.com In this case, determining the proper order of Y and Z's four sons requires recourse to other sources -- not just the printed genealogy but also dates and ages from all relevant tombstones, census data (Did Y and Z have only one younger male in their household in 1790?), and any available birth and christening dates. And perhaps other sources that I'm forgetting at the moment. If after exhaustive study you still think that the one called "third son" on the tombstone ought to have been called "fourth son," say so in your files -- but also give your reasoning for that conclusion from the evidence. It will be appreciated if you donate or publish your work. Austin W. Spencer "Austin W. Spencer" <AustinWSpencer@sdc.cox.net>